Gujarat HC issues notice clock-making firm over Morbi bridge collapse

The Gujarat High Court on Wednesday issued notice to the clock-making firm Ajanta Manufacturing Private Limited (Oreva Group) as a party in the ongoing litigation over the suspension bridge collapse in Morbi on October 30 in which 135 people were killed.

The firm had the contract for the upkeep of the suspension bridge.

A division bench of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh Shastri issued notice to the company on a petition moved by activists -Sanjiv Ezhava and Dilip Chavda- through lawyers Rahul Sharma and Utkarsh Dave. The company has been asked to respond by January 19, the next date of the hearing.

Seeking to make Ajanta Group as one of the party respondents, the petitioners have stated, "Irrespective of the nature of its contractual obligations, M/s Ajanta did owe a duty of care to the public at large, which it failed to exhibit and which led to the unfortunate incident. Such acts of malfeasance on the part of Ajanta will make it liable for the payment of exemplary damages. For this reason, it is necessary that M/s Ajanta be joined as Respondent No-7 to this petition."

This is the first time that Morbi's famous clock-maker is going to respond to the court. The company has been mum over the incident since the beginning while its owner Jaysukh Patel is yet to be examined by the policemen investigating the case.

The local police didn't name the firm in the FIR and two of its managers were arrested along with six others including two proprietors of another private firm, Dev Prakash Solutions, which had the sub-contract of repairing the bridge.

Meanwhile, the division bench also dismissed an application jointly filed by 46 councillors of Morbi municipality requesting to be impleaded as party in the proceedings. Their lawyer argued that since the state government is mulling over superseding the municipality in view of the court's order, they should be allowed to be heard before any such order is passed.

Over the past several weeks, a group of these councillors has made representation to the state government against the initiation of supersedure. The division bench while rejecting their plea stated that these applicants are "neither necessary nor proper parties" in the ongoing litigation as it is based on a suo moto proceeding.